Where did I say that you had? I was, however, drawing the distinction.Because in the bit that I did quote, you are merrily eliding G-Zs specific point with regard to refugees into your own worries about migration in general. Much like UKIP's "breaking point" poster.

I don't have any worries about migration. I have worries about housing, services and welfare. I worry about the numbers of people, not where they come from.

But conflate away.

You were specifically making the connection - I was saying that the UK has not taken responsibility over the refugee crisis, and you said that it had taken responsibility because it had taken 7m migrants over the last ten years. As has been said - precisely conflating the topics just as UKIP have. (and you are still not explaining where the 7m comes from).

yomptepi wrote:We are leaving, and unfortunately that was the democratic will of the people

The problem is that "the people" weren't clamouring for a referendum.

Hardly anybody was interested a few short months ago apart from Farage and his cronies and the right of the Tory Party.

So "the people" were forced to make a decision based on lies & misinformation. The vote result showed an underlying mistrust of government and a hint of racism but most people didn't have a clue what they were actually voting for.

In fairness, Prof, the people weren't forced to do anything.

In his desperate attempt to hang on to short-term power, Cameron recklessly gambled with the country's long-term future by offering voters a needless referendum on which the majority of people either weren't given or couldn't be arsed to discover the full facts.

Sadly, the effects of Mr Cameron's stupidity will continue to echo long after large numbers of those who voted to leave will have died.

What will happen with Trump literally remains to be seen. As does my prediction the EU house will fall. Rather than another war and a repeat of the Holocaust, as you imply will happen, maybe there will be justice.

I don't think you need to be the Amazing Kreskin to work out that the EU will sooner rather than later go tits up, J

All things go tits up eventually but the EU has created peace in Europe for my entire life time and for that I am profoundly grateful considering what preceded it.

Morons have been proclaiming the death of the EU ever since the first economic treaty between France and Germany. As long as France and Germany desire to be bound together it will survive and prosper and probably continue to expand.

The UK will be begging to be let back in again within a few years that much is certain, and for exactly the same reasons we begged to be let in in the first place.

yomptepi wrote:The only country is Europe to run a budget surplus last year was Germany , which had a 0.1% surplus.

a) not the same thing as bankruptcy;b) since the UK had a deficit last year of 5.2%, what's your point?

My point is that is that after 40 years, the EU is not providing any sort of economic security, any guarantee of growth, and certainly no guarantees for job security. It has proven to be corrupt at every level. It makes rules, and then only forces certain countries to enforce them, whilst allowing others to openly flaunt , with no attempt to put bring them in line.

.

But only a liar could provide those guarantees

But I would say the EU has provided growth, economic security and prosperity for much of the time we have been in it.

And we probably wont find out how much any success we have had has been bound up with it until we leave it.

I believe there will be an awful reckoning, I hope it will destroy the Conservative Party for leading us down this route but fear the demagoguery that will takes its place.

This country is going to become a meaner, nastier, poorer and more vicious place.

Regarding the EU's inability to bridge the gap between the rich and poor across different countries - I agree completely, although I'd also say the same for the UK government (and most governments) over the North-South, Urban/Rural, London vs. Rest of UK etc divides and where the investment generally occurs, quality of health services etc.

But the EU has bridged the gap between rich and poor as anyone who knows the first thing a about countries like Spain, Italy, Greece and Poland in the 1970s and those countries today couldn't help but attest.

Greece is a basket case but a far more modern and well set up country than it was under the generals.

yomptepi wrote:I don't have any worries about migration. I have worries about housing, services and welfare. I worry about the numbers of people, not where they come from.

But conflate away.

A very good point

If you were Jimbo you'd wonder if the infrastructure wasn't put in place to deal with what, even by 20th century standards, isn't unprecedented numbers of people coming here on purpose to create an angry population who could be manipulated into voting for their continued impoverishment and the destruction of the services they rely on for profit.

Copehead wrote:a As long as France and Germany desire to be bound together it will survive and prosper and probably continue to expand.

How will it expand? I mean, no-one is going to let in Turkey right now are they?

As much I believe in the idea of the EU and want it to succeed, I think it has reached its zenith in terms of its size at least. The migration crisis (and it is undoubtedly that) has winded it pretty badly and the next problem is Italy, which is not only going to have a change of government, it is also going to have a dreadful crisis in its banking sector pretty soon.

You are misguided if you think that the EU is going to continue to prosper with Britain's exit. The union is walking on eggshells and I'd be surprised if it is in its current form in less than 5 years, particularly with the frequency of terrorist attacks in France and Germany right now. I would hope that in the future the EU recognises the need for change and that a new agreement of some sorts is put together. There is no doubt that freedom of movement has produced unexpected issues that could destroy the Union.

The fact that France's leader used the language of violence (making them pay) to describe what happens to Britain sends a massive signal - that countries are bound to the EU by fear. What sort of organisation uses fear to tell countries what will happen if they leave?

yomptepi wrote:I worry about the numbers of people, not where they come from.

I don't doubt it. And doing so conflates one issue, total migration, with another, refugees.

yomptepi wrote:You say Sweden has been hit hard taking up the slack during the refugee crisis. Great Britain has has over 7 million migrants in the last ten years. Hardly shirking our responsibilities.

Where people come from may not matter to you, but it likely matters very much to them. Because it is intimately bound up with whether they had arrived in search of chronically better economic circumstances or because they were under acute risk of death. Hence a host country may have accepted 7 (or whatever) million migrants and yet "shirk its responsibility" in the face of a humanitarian crisis.

Toby wrote:The fact that France's leader used the language of violence (making them pay) to describe what happens to Britain sends a massive signal - that countries are bound to the EU by fear. What sort of organisation uses fear to tell countries what will happen if they leave?

One that is trying to sell the advantages to those members staying in?

I'm a little surprised that Johnson and others are surprised by the EU's reaction to us leaving - what did we expect, a "Thanks" and "Call again when it suits?".

We all know why May is now saying we're going to have a hard Brexit - it's fuck all to do with her or her Govt. It's what the EU told us - by all means leave but don't you dare expect special privileges. And fair play to them, to be honest. I'm sure that, had another State done what we have, we'd be saying exactly the same to them. Indeed, I'd suggest we'd be one of the most vociferous proponents of that approach.

toomanyhatz wrote:In fact I'll take it a step farther and say many of my male friends are gay. Not a majority, but a higher percentage than the general demographic...

We all know why May is now saying we're going to have a hard Brexit - it's fuck all to do with her or her Govt. It's what the EU told us - by all means leave but don't you dare expect special privileges. And fair play to them, to be honest. I'm sure that, had another State done what we have, we'd be saying exactly the same to them. Indeed, I'd suggest we'd be one of the most vociferous proponents of that approach.

Copehead wrote:a As long as France and Germany desire to be bound together it will survive and prosper and probably continue to expand.

How will it expand? I mean, no-one is going to let in Turkey right now are they?

As much I believe in the idea of the EU and want it to succeed, I think it has reached its zenith in terms of its size at least. The migration crisis (and it is undoubtedly that) has winded it pretty badly and the next problem is Italy, which is not only going to have a change of government, it is also going to have a dreadful crisis in its banking sector pretty soon.

You are misguided if you think that the EU is going to continue to prosper with Britain's exit. The union is walking on eggshells and I'd be surprised if it is in its current form in less than 5 years, particularly with the frequency of terrorist attacks in France and Germany right now. I would hope that in the future the EU recognises the need for change and that a new agreement of some sorts is put together. There is no doubt that freedom of movement has produced unexpected issues that could destroy the Union.

The fact that France's leader used the language of violence (making them pay) to describe what happens to Britain sends a massive signal - that countries are bound to the EU by fear. What sort of organisation uses fear to tell countries what will happen if they leave?

As I said the union will continue as long as Germany and France wish to be bound together, anyone who thinks anything else knows fuck all about the politics of those two countries in the late 20th century through to today.

Sorry Toby but you are just regurgitating Daily Mail editorials again.

Diamond Dog wrote:It may well be. That's not my point. My point is the Govt doesn't dictate, Parliament votes.

And parliament could make stipulations - Corbyn has said that Labour will try to amend any act to safeguard the economy. On the downside, the judges ruled that devolved administrations do not need to be consulted which will piss off a lot of people north of the border in Scotland and Ireland.